Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Science & Medicine
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed
Cannabis careers revisited: Applying Howard S. Becker’s theory
to present-day cannabis use
Margaretha Järvinen a, b, *, Signe Ravn b
a
b
Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark
SFI e The Danish National Centre for Social Research, Denmark
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online 15 November 2013
A considerable part of today’s sociological research on recreational drug use is (explicitly or implicitly)
inspired by Howard Becker’s classical model of deviant careers. The aim of the present paper is to directly
apply Becker’s theory to empirical data on present-day cannabis use and to suggest a revision of the
theory. As part of this, we propose a stretch of the sociological approach represented by Becker and
followers in order to include, not only recreational drug use, but also use for which young people have
sought treatment. The paper is based on 30 qualitative interviews with young people in treatment for
cannabis problems in Copenhagen, Denmark. We suggest a revision of Becker’s career model in relation
to four aspects: initiation of cannabis use, differentiation between socially integrated and individualised,
disintegrated use, social control from non-users, and the users’ moral stance on cannabis. A central point
of the paper is that social interaction may both motivate cannabis use, as Becker proposed, and serve as a
protective factor against extensive, problematic use.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Youth
Cannabis careers
Qualitative methods
Howard Becker
Symbolic interaction
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to propose a revision of Howard S.
Becker’s classic (1953, 1955e56, 1973) theory on deviant careers
in order to apply it to present day cannabis use e the parade
example of deviance used by Becker. Becker’s (1953) path-breaking
contribution emphasised social level explanations of cannabis use;
in order to become regular cannabis users, people had to be associated with subcultural networks that transformed their behaviour,
mind-set and moral stance on drugs. We use Becker’s theory in an
analysis of young cannabis smokers in Copenhagen, Denmark, who
have sought treatment for their cannabis problems. Like Becker’s
study, this paper stresses the importance of social level explanations, but rather focuses on social interaction as a factor that may
both inspire occasional cannabis use and hinder excessive use.
Becker’s work is often used to underscore two key points. First,
within studies of deviance, that people who deviate from the norms
of conventional society are not ‘special kinds of people’, but that
deviance is the result of processes of social interaction and socialisation. And second, within studies on drug use, that cannabis use e
* Corresponding author. Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen,
Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
E-mail addresses: mja@sfi.dk, mj@soc.ku.dk (M. Järvinen).
0277-9536/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.002
or other drug use e does not necessarily lead to problematic use
and addiction, but can be a controlled activity. This view has
inspired a great amount of qualitative research into illegal drug use,
particularly since the early 1990s, and especially in the UK. The
literature on recreational party drug use focuses on drug intake as
“calculated hedonism” (Featherstone, 1991) or “controlled loss of
control” (Measham, 2004), describing drug users as rational riskmanagers assessing their substance use as functional and
compatible with other aspects of their life (Hutton, 2006; Malbon,
1999; Measham, Aldridge, & Parker, 2001; Measham, Newcombe, &
Parker, 1994; Parker, Aldridge, & Measham, 1998; Sanders, 2005;
Williams & Parker, 2001). Highly influential in this tradition is
Parker and colleagues’ work suggesting a normalisation of recreational drug use (Measham et al., 1994; Parker et al., 1998). According to Parker et al. (1998), “sensible”, unproblematic drug use
has become a socially accommodated activity and part of a ‘work
hard, play hard’ life-style practised by ordinary youths. While the
normalisation thesis is still debated (see e.g. Aldridge, Measham, &
Williams, 2011; Measham & Shiner, 2009; Shildrick, 2008), the
focus on recreational drug use as a controlled activity has for a large
part been maintained (however, see e.g. Järvinen & Ravn, 2011;
MacDonald & Marsh, 2002; Shildrick, 2002 for exceptions to this).
Compared to the impressive amount of studies analysing recreational party drug use, qualitative studies of cannabis use are more
sparse (e.g. Amos, Wiltshire, Bostock, Haw, & McNeill, 2004; Bell,
134
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
Pavis, Cunningham-Burley, & Amos, 1998; Fletcher, Bonell,
Sorhaindo, & Rhodes, 2009; Haines, Johnson, Carter, & Arora, 2009;
Hathaway, Comeau, & Erickson, 2011; Sandberg, 2012; Shukla &
Kelley, 2007). These studies represent a range of theoretical approaches. Some scholars use a subcultural perspective, arguing that
cannabis cultures should be seen as a collection of rituals, stories
and symbols that resist majority norms (Golub, 2005; Sandberg,
2012; Sandberg & Pedersen, 2010; Shiner, 2009). Other qualitative
researchers analyse the social context and meaning of cannabis use
and the users’ identity development, without tying this to explicit
subcultures (Bell et al., 1998; Hathaway et al., 2011), also stressing
the importance of gender, social class and ethnicity for the users’
cannabis careers (Fletcher et al., 2009; Haines et al., 2009).
Furthermore, an emerging literature focuses on decision-making
and drug use (e.g. Shukla & Kelley, 2007), analysing cannabis
users as rational agents choosing to use drugs as long as the benefits (pleasure, relaxation, sociability) outweigh the costs (price of
drugs, health risks etc.).
A significant part of this literature e on recreational party drug
use as well as recreational cannabis use e is inspired by Becker’s
(1953) theory on deviance. However, the theory is typically
referred to rather cursorily and seldom put to systematic analytical
use (exceptions are Hallstone’s (2002) and Hirsch, Conforti, and
Graney’s (1990) studies which we return to below). Contrary to
much previous research, the aim of the present study is 1) to
directly apply Becker’s model of deviant careers to empirical data
on present-day cannabis use among young people and to suggest a
revision of the model. Another aim of the study is 2) to stretch the
sociological approach represented by Becker and followers to
include not only recreational but also problematic drug use, i.e. use
for which young people have sought treatment. Although we share
the view represented by the tradition emanating from Becker that
cannabis use is often controlled and without serious long-term
consequences for the users, our study also addresses the more
problematic aspects of drug use. Thus, we will show how Becker’s
sequential model does not have to stop at the level of regular,
controlled use but may be extended to include “excessive” use, and
we argue that this expansion of the theory provides new insights
into cannabis careers as such.
When approaching cannabis use as a form of “deviance” (Becker,
1953, 1973) an important note should be made. In today’s Denmark,
as in many other Western countries, cannabis inhabits a very
different position than it did 60 years ago when Becker formulated
his theory. First, cannabis is easily available. According to survey
data, 80% of the 18e19 years old Danes say they could easily buy
cannabis if they wanted to (Østergaard, Røgeskov, & Rasmussen,
2011). Second, use is relatively wide-spread: 38% of 15e24-yearolds report they have tried cannabis at least once (EMCDDA, 2012).
And third, among young people in Denmark, experimentation with
cannabis is generally regarded as acceptable; regular use, on the
other hand, is surrounded by negative attitudes (Järvinen &
Demant, 2011). On a political level, the city of Copenhagen works
on a controlled legalisation of cannabis, in part inspired by The
Netherlands and, most recently, the legalisation of cannabis in the
states of Colorado and Washington, USA in 2012. While these examples are still sporadic on an international scale, they illustrate
the changed position of cannabis from being a drug on the margins
of society to being a more or less accepted drug in some countries.
These changes are obviously important for the conceptualisation of
the career stages that cannabis users move through and are
therefore included in our efforts to apply Becker’s theory to
empirical data.
In the following, we present Becker’s career model and the few
studies that explicitly use his theory on empirical data in order to
discuss its applicability. After this, we outline our own approach.
Becker’s career model
Becker (1953) was one of the first to analyse drug careers as a
social process, focussing, not on the drug users’ personal characteristics but on a set of changes in their conceptual and experiential
relationship to cannabis, developed in social interaction with
others. Becker described three prerequisites in the process of
becoming a cannabis smoker: a) learning to smoke cannabis in the
right way, b) learning to recognise the effects of the drug, and c)
learning to enjoy these effects. His argument was that the motivation to engage in cannabis use does not necessarily precede
experimentation with cannabis but follows from a subcultural
learning process where the individual is socialised into certain
behaviours and states of mind (Becker, 1953, p. 242). In this process
cannabis smokers not only learn to enjoy the drug but also to regard
cannabis use as morally acceptable. Becker (1955e56, 1973)
described three stages of cannabis use: the beginner (the stage
where the individual “learns to become a cannabis user”, cf. points
a, b, and c above); the occasional user whose cannabis smoking is
sporadic, and the regular, systematic cannabis user. The progression
from one stage to another is socially conditioned, according to
Becker (1973): without integration into a network of users, and
without a loosening of the ties to conventional society, users do not
proceed in their “deviant” careers.
Becker (1955e56) tied the stages of user careers to social control, hypothesising that various kinds of social control become
progressively less effective as users move from one stage to the
next. One kind of control is related to supply: In order to advance
from the beginner stage to the occasional and regular stages, users
have to find more stable sources of supply than chance encounters
with other users. A second type of control concerns the need to
keep non-users unaware of one’s drug use because of potential
negative reactions or sanctions. This secrecy is often maintained
through a change in the users’ social participation. The association
with other drug users is intensified at the same time as contact with
non-users is kept at a minimum. A third kind of control is related to
the users’ conceptions of cannabis smoking as (im)moral behaviour.
When cannabis users move from occasional to regular use, they
develop what Becker calls a “more emancipated view” on the drug,
e.g. defining the effects of cannabis as more beneficial than harmful
and regarding cannabis as a safer drug than alcohol and tobacco.
Part of this is also the conviction that “scheduled” use is unproblematic use: as long as users alternate between use and nonuse (at points of time when use is felt to be inappropriate or
when they decide to take a break), they typically feel “in control” of
the drug (Becker, 1955e56, p. 41e42).
Hirsch et al. (1990) applied Becker’s theory to interviews with
cannabis users in Wisconsin, finding some sequential limitations in
the theory. First, initiation of cannabis use is probably less sudden
and less dependent on other people’s advice than Becker proposed.
The beginner stage is typically preceded by a process in which the
individual develops a willingness to experiment with cannabis, and
many novices do not need others to instruct them about how to
enjoy the effects of the drug. Second, Hirsch et al. (1990) find
Becker’s stage “regular use” too broad, and question the meaningfulness of lumping together e.g. regular monthly use and daily use.
As a supplement to Becker’s theory, Hirsch et al. suggest a career
model originally developed by van Dijk (van Dijk, 1972 cited in
Hirsch et al., 1990) covering the stages ‘experimentalism’, ‘integrated use’ and ‘excessive use’. Hirsch et al. (1990) prefer this model
because it differentiates between integrated use, meaning regular
use which is not necessarily problematic, and excessive use which
may be associated with addiction.
In a similar way, Hallstone (2002) proposes a development of
Becker’s theory. Analysing qualitative interviews with Hawaiian
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
cannabis smokers, Hallstone shows that people do not necessarily
have to go through a radical learning process and moral transformation in order to become (occasional or regular) cannabis
users. Also, Hallstone (2006) points out that “regular” cannabis use
is not static but a relative and variable phenomenon, and that the
careers of cannabis users are constantly changing in response to
social conditions. Some regular users are able to exercise control
over their drug intake, typically because they have “a stake in
conventional life” (Hallstone, 2006, p. 71) or in Becker’s (1973, p.
28) terminology: “conventional commitments” to e.g. school, work
and family. Other regular users develop a destructive smoking
pattern that monopolises their whole existence (Hallstone, 2006).
Another approach is proposed by Hathaway (1997, 2004), who
draws on Canadian data to show how Becker’s career model needs
modification. He suggests that cannabis use is now (1997) considered tolerable and that use should no longer be associated with
subcultural groupings. Instead, he views cannabis use as a lifestyle
choice that is “independently regulated”, and regards patterns of
use as “genuinely personal” (1997, p. 122), renouncing the social
level of explanation inherent in Becker’s theory.
Inspired by Becker’s study and the later applications of his
theory, we analyse the careers of young Danish cannabis users,
focussing on their way from experimenting with cannabis to
“excessive” use for which they have sought treatment. As
mentioned, we extend Becker’s theory to include the development
of problematic use. Like Becker, we regard cannabis use careers as
socially conditioned, but in a partially different way from what
Becker described. Importantly, the significant distinction in our
interviewees’ careers is not so much between non-use and use as
between socially integrated use and what we call individualised,
disintegrated use. In the sections that follow we depict the gradual
changes our interviewees undergo when they proceed from initial
to excessive use. These changes are, as Becker’s theory proposes,
related to social control (or lack hereof) and to a transformation of
the users’ “moral” relationship to cannabis e a transformation
though, that differs from the one Becker (1955e56) depicted.
Before turning to the career stages in the interviews, we
describe the data and methods of the study.
Data and methods
The paper is based on 30 qualitative interviews with young
people enrolled in drug treatment in Copenhagen, Denmark. The
interviews were conducted in Autumn 2011 and Spring 2012. The
participants were enrolled at three small centres (Centre A: 14 interviewees, Centre B: 12 interviewees and Centre C: four interviewees), all offering outpatient treatment to young people with
drug problems. Twenty-seven interviewees were recruited through
the staff at the centres who introduced the research project to
potential participants. If interested, the young drug users provided
their phone numbers and were then contacted by the interviewers.
Three interviewees contacted one of the interviewers directly, after
she had been permitted access to observe a group therapy session
and introduced the study there. No other eligibility criteria than
enrolment in treatment for cannabis problems were applied. This
open sampling procedure meant that the interviewees had
different drug use profiles and treatment experiences. Their time in
treatment ranged from just over one month to more than two years.
The interviewees’ way into treatment differed in that one group
(about half of the sample) had sought treatment themselves, one
group (about one fourth) was enrolled because parents or other
relatives took action, and finally, one group (about one fourth) was
enrolled by a ‘system representative’, typically a social worker, e.g.
when the interviewee was in contact with the employment system.
None of the interviewees, however, resisted being in treatment; if
135
so they would have been discharged, since the three centres only
work with voluntary participants.
The sample consisted of 19 men and 11 women. Their mean age
was 21.7 years, ranging from 17 to 28, with the majority (21 people)
being between 18 and 23 years of age. While 10 were in regular jobs
(some half-time or temporary) or enrolled in education, the majority received welfare payments and took part in various activation
or educational projects in relation to this. Very few interviewees
had finished an education after lower secondary school (two had
finished high-school) and their work experiences typically consisted of short-term appointments in jobs such as shop assistants,
nursery assistants, waiters, petrol pump attendants etc. We did not
ask systematically about upbringing, parents’ education or work
positions etc., but around two thirds of the interviewees spontaneously provided some information about this. Thus, eight reported
upper middle-class backgrounds and 13 came from working-class
or lower middle class families. Parents’ alcohol and/or drug problems were mentioned by 12 interviewees.
Most interviews took place in a meeting room at the treatment
facilities; three were conducted at the researchers’ work-place or in
a nearby park. The interviews lasted 45e80 min, most around 1 h.
They were semi-structured and based on a schedule that consisted
of four overall themes: drug use initiation and progression of use,
current drug use, expectations when seeking treatment, and experiences with being in treatment. Further, the interviewees were
asked about their education, work and living situation. All interviews were audio-recorded, fully transcribed and anonymised.
All names in the paper are pseudonyms.
Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees. There are
no institutional boards for the approval of social science studies in
Denmark, but we do not consider the study to be in any way in
conflict with the Helsinki Declaration.
In this paper we focus on the interviewees’ previous and current
drug use, and not their treatment experiences as such e however,
we will return to the question of the significance of their involvement with the treatment system in the concluding discussion.
When reading through the transcripts initially, we found that the
interviewees to a large extent described their drug use careers in
sequences, and this prompted the idea to explicitly apply Becker’s
theory, and not other analytical approaches, to our data. Thus, with
Becker’s theory in mind, four categories concerning cannabis use
were developed on basis of the data: initiation of use, occasional
use, regular use and “problematic” use (or use urging the participant to seek treatment). Within these sequential categories we
further coded the interviews for ‘influence from friends’, ‘smoking
with friends’ vs. ‘smoking alone’, ‘drug effects’, ‘attitudes to
cannabis’ and ‘reactions/sanctions from non-smokers’. Both authors coded the material independently whereupon the two sets of
coding were compared. In the few cases where our coding differed,
we discussed this and agreed on a final interpretation.
Occasional use
In general, our interviewees did not recollect having gone
through a learning process when it comes to smoking techniques
and interpretation of cannabis’ effects. About two thirds said they
felt the effects of cannabis the first time they smoked it, and none
mentioned other people assisting them in the interpretation of
these effects. Martin (20) who had his first experience with
cannabis at age 15 related:
“I had started to smoke cigarettes, and the same autumn, maybe
two months later, I decided I wanted to try cannabis [.] The
first time was fantastic, it was together with some of my best
friends. We sat in the kitchen and smoked some joints and I
136
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
remember I was real zonked. I ate ravenously and then went into
another room and lied down next to the dog and talked to him
for maybe 45 min [.] I laughed and laughed and couldn’t stop
again”.
Some interviewees said they went from initial use to repeated
use together with other “ordinary” youths, e.g. schoolmates or
childhood friends who just like themselves had started to experiment with cannabis. Jasmine (20) said the following about the
summer when she increased her cannabis use:
Although Martin had his cannabis début together with a couple
of friends who had smoked the drug before, he needed no instruction in inhalation techniques, he said, nor did he hesitate in his
recognition of the effects of cannabis. Steffen (19) was equally
determined and well-informed about what to expect when he first
smoked cannabis four years ago. One evening at an end-of-term
celebration he and his friend decided to take the subway to
Christiania (a “free town” in Copenhagen where cannabis is easily
available): “They made these joints for us and we smoked them. It
was real fun, I didn’t feel sick at all, it was just grand [.] The blaze
came crawling up my back and settled around my head like a
helmet, it was so funny.”
Most of the interviewees who did not feel anything the first time
they smoked cannabis offered explanations for this (typically: they
did not smoke enough), and a frequent pattern was that they tried
soon again, this time with the intended effects. Thomas (18) had his
first experience with cannabis at age 15 together with some
schoolmates: “Nothing happened really, I was very nervous when it
was my turn, was I supposed to suck in or what? But I tried and it
felt almost like a cigarette. Then afterwards we went to a party and I
smoked some more, and I was crunched the whole evening”. Sanne
(17) first smoked cannabis at a party together with some friends
from school when she was 13e14. She did not feel anything and
explained it like this: “It was a school-joint made on an [emptied]
cigarette [.] Nothing happened. It was just two puffs, right. The
second time I smoked was with a friend of mine and I got real
baked. It was a fairly big joint for two persons, especially for me
who had no experience”.
Just like Hallstone’s (2002) findings on cannabis débuts, ours do
not match Becker’s (1953) claim that one has “to learn to become a
cannabis user” and that the disposition and motivation for cannabis
use develops after cannabis use initiation in a process of subcultural
socialisation. Although some of our interviewees (like Thomas and
Sanne above) did not feel anything the first time they smoked
cannabis, they did not have to go through a lengthy “beginner
stage” in order to acquire a taste for the drug. What they described
was rather mistakes in dosages due to carelessness, which they
later adjusted, with the result that they experienced the desired
effects. In general, the threshold to cannabis use initiation was low
for our interviewees and they did not attach much importance to it
in retrospect. Some participants even said they did not remember
when, where and with whom they first smoked cannabis.
“It was this lovely summer, with cannabis and good friends. We
had such a great time together [.] It’s incredible how much we
smoked. We sat there four-five hours and went home at 2 AM.
The weather was still beautiful at night. We just sat there
smoking or lied down watching the stars, things like that”.
Socially integrated use
Although the interviewees’ first experiences with cannabis do
not quite match Becker’s (1953) description of “the beginner stage”,
their accounts about their subsequent cannabis careers are more in
tune with the theory. First and foremost, the development of their
cannabis use cannot be understood independently of their social
network and the use patterns of their peers. Becker (1955e56)
described how “movement to a new level of use” depends on the
degree of participation in groups of fellow users who supply the
newcomer with drugs, company and “emancipated views”. In our
study as well, most cannabis smokers said they increased their drug
intake in step with peers who also passed from initial to more
regular use. In this sense, their disposition to engage in the activity
more intensely developed in social interaction (Becker, 1955e56,
p. 235).
Other participants described their smoking friends as special in
one way or other. For instance, Mikkel (26) did not feel part of the
community at his school when he was 14e15 and instead started to
mix with other youths: “It was those who didn’t quite fit in. The
others played tennis or football, and their parents knew each other.
We were the ones who were tired of school, stuff like that [.] And
in the course of a year or so, I smoked daily”.
A few interviewees in our sample described their friend groups
in terms reminiscent of “subcultures”, i.e. they referred to the
groups as holding specific values and preferences, and depicted
cannabis smoking as part of a distinct ideology, more or less in the
same way as Becker’s interviewees did. The absolute majority,
however, did not attach any symbolic values or acts of resistance to
their cannabis use (as e.g. participants in a Norwegian interview
study did, cf. Sandberg, 2012), nor did they depict their friend
groups as characterised by distinct ‘tastes’ (cf. Thornton’s study of
clubbers (Thornton, 1995)). In general, our interviews do not
contain much information about specific rituals and symbols or
attitudes positioning cannabis smokers in opposition to mainstream society. To the extent that the interviewees described
themselves and their friends as “different” from others (as Mikkel
did above) it was more in terms of social and individual marginalisation than positive identification with a subculture. However,
our study is based on interviews alone, not on fieldwork which
might have provided more information about subcultural affiliations. We return to this in the concluding discussion.
Whether participants described their network as consisting of
“ordinary youths” or a “specific kind of people”, their cannabis use
was still social at this point. They enjoyed the company of their
friends, had a variety of activities with them, including occasional,
and gradually more frequent, cannabis smoking. What happened
next, according to many interviewees, was that the group of friends,
which formerly gathered for many different reasons, became a
group focused on cannabis smoking. Line (23) said: “You start to
hang out more and more with these people, and you smoke every
time you see them. It’s as if you start seeing them in order to smoke.
If you don’t smoke, you don’t see them”. In this phase, cannabis
smoking became a cohesive factor of the group and (partly, at least)
a criterion for membership. Those who diminished their cannabis
use, or quit smoking, gradually vanished from the group, whereas
those who continued or escalated their use e including the interviewees in this study e stayed in the group.
Individualised, disintegrated use
In parallel with the above-mentioned transformation of the
groups’ raison d’etre, smoking became more individualised, meaning that the participants smoked “alongside others” rather than
“together with them”, as David (23) put it:
“It gradually changed. Sitting and smoking together with others
more and more became sitting and smoking alongside others. It
wasn’t that you smoked together, we didn’t share joints like we
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
used to [.] We bought things for our own use. We sat and
watched the same movie, maybe quarrelling about which movie
or which channel to watch, that was more or less the social part
of it. It became less and less social, actually, although we met in
order to smoke together”.
In this development, having enough cannabis for one’s own use
became more important than sharing the cannabis experience with
other people. Jasmine (20) related:
“It may very well happen that one of my friends calls and suggests we see each other, and I say: ’Yeah, let’s do that’, and she
says: ’Do you have money’? I say: ’Yes, a little, I can buy food but
what about smoke’? It just slips out automatically, ’what about
smoke’? And she says: ’I just have a small lump’, and I: ’But if
you’re going to be here for six hours, a small lump is not
enough... What about dropping the food’? She says: ’But I
haven’t had anything to eat’, and I: ’Fuck it, let’s meet another
day instead’. And this is because we don’t have enough to smoke
the whole evening both of us [.] I have cancelled many appointments on that score. You can’t really see each other if you
don’t have cannabis.”
Earlier on in the interviewees’ careers, smoking alone was
synonymous with problematic drug use. Nikolaj (20) looked back at
how things used to be before he became a frequent user: “It has
been a rather strict taboo. In my friend group you don’t smoke
alone. It’s called ego joints and it’s miserable”. With the development towards individual, disintegrated use, the difference between
smoking in the company of others and smoking alone gradually lost
its significance.
This change was related to a transformation of the effects of
cannabis. Sarah (22) compared her cannabis smoking at the time of
the interview to her previous social cannabis use:
“Back then I used to have the ganoobies [intense fun]. I smoked
in order to become high and because I wanted to be out with my
friends, out in the sun. Now I couldn’t care less if I sit at home
under my duvet with nothing to watch in the telly and nothing
to do whatsoever, as long as I have my joints”
What Sarah and many other interviewees described is a change
from cheerful, social intoxication to a lonesome, cannabis-induced
tranquillity or, in the words of some participants, lethargy.
Cannabis no longer had the combined stimulating/relaxing effects
it once had (laughter, joyful togetherness); it was now primarily
experienced as calming/blunting. One reason behind this change
was that the users gradually needed more and more cannabis in
order to feel its effects. Rasmus (22) stated: “When my abuse was at
its highest, I finished one spliff and immediately after that [I
thought] ‘what the hell, I’ll take another, this one didn’t work’”.
Tolerance was not the only reason, however. Participants told that
they started to seek other effects of cannabis such as using it in
order to suppress anxiety, forget troubles and as sleeping medicine.
Thus, from having been a drug the interviewees used in order to
have fun, cannabis transformed into a drug they used in order to
solve problems e or, as others put it, “in order to function” or “just
to feel normal”.
Social control
As mentioned, Becker (1955e56) described three types of
control which become progressively less effective when people
proceed in their drug use career: control related to drug supply,
137
control from non-users, and self-control, in terms of diminishing
moral barriers to drug use. In relation to supply, Becker stipulated
that users need to have access to increasingly large amounts of
cannabis if they are to pass from occasional to regular use. However, none of our interviewees mentioned problems with supplies,
neither early in their cannabis careers nor later on. Cannabis
appeared readily available and the only potential barrier for
further use was lack of economic resources. Thus, as supply does
not serve as a control mechanism in our data we will not go further
into this dimension.
The second control mechanism, fear of sanctions from nonusers, was of some relevance to our interviewees. Becker (1955e
56) described cannabis users’ efforts to keep their use a secret by
restricting it to settings where non-smokers are absent because of
the expected negative reactions. As we will show, in our data the
category of non-smokers/potential condemners primarily covers
parents and teachers, and not peers.
A number of interviewees avoided smoking at their parents’
house and sought other places to smoke instead. Moving out from
their childhood home often proved a decisive point in their
cannabis career, as this eliminated an obvious obstacle for smoking
cannabis more regularly. Thus, as David (23) described it:
“The summer holidays ended but not for me [after first year at
Medical School]. At that time I had moved out [from his parents’
place] and into a really cool apartment together with five
friends. And there it was just too easy for me to be alone. My
parents did not know that I smoked, so moving made smoking
much easier, but in reality it was the worst decision I have ever
made [.] because I pushed my roomies away from me, I closed
the door all the time, and the smell [from cannabis] would
bother them, and we would quarrel about it, and I would start to
seal my doorframe with silicone to prevent the smoke from
leaking out from my room. Totally ridiculous, really isolating
myself, and I did not realise what I was doing. [.] I never really
went to school.”
Even though David’s roommates were non-smokers (or at the
most, occasional cannabis smokers) and did not approve of him
smoking in the apartment, David increased his cannabis use. While
Becker (1955e56) proposed a change in social participation as the
user becomes more and more integrated in the cannabis “subculture” and stops seeing non-using peers, David got increasingly
isolated and neither socialised with his roommates nor with other
cannabis users.
Not all cannabis users isolated themselves when their smoking
increased. Some interviewees told that they loosened their initial
restrictions and started smoking cannabis in settings where adults
were present. As Becker noted, experienced smokers learn “to
control the drug’s effects while in the company of non-users, so that
they [non-users] can be fooled” (Becker, 1955e56, p. 40). Sanne (17)
described how this meant that she could smoke all day:
“In the end I smoked every day. By and large from when I got out
of bed in the morning, and then in the breaks at school, I went to
the restrooms to make a joint and stuff like that, it was real fun
[...] My friend was sent home, but I just laughed at it and so they
did not really notice that I had smoked. Once they found out,
though, but I was not sent home, it’s strange. It was just ‘go sit in
the back [of the classroom], go out and let it wear off and then
come back’”.
While generally being able to use cannabis “under the noses”
(Becker, 1955e56, p. 39) of her teachers by hiding the act of
smoking in the restrooms and being able to control the drug high
138
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
afterwards, Sanne was caught a few times, but without this having
any consequences for her. Sebastian (20) told a similar story:
“I didn’t do my homework [in high-school] but I could still take
part in classroom discussions, you know, and when something
[hand-ins] needed to be done, I would do it and I got good marks
at the exams and stuff like that [.] I respected the teachers,
they liked me and so they probably just didn’t think it was as
bad as it was [.] Well, sometimes they could tell that I was
stoned, but then they just let me sit and do nothing [.] My dad
did notice a little, but I don’t think he knew how much I smoked.
I had told him that I had tried cannabis. I guess he just thought
‘Well, he is young and doesn’t want to be home much, he rather
wants to hang out with his friends’”
According to Sebastian, both his teachers and his father were
aware that he smoked cannabis but not of the extent of his use.
Even when his father could not help noticing his increased use, he
did not confront him with this because he “did not want to realise
it”, according to Sebastian. This is a general pattern in our data:
Parents and teachers were often aware of the interviewees’
cannabis smoking, but did not interfere. The interviewees on their
part tried to hide the extent of their cannabis use, e.g. by keeping a
distance to adults (moving out, staying away from school) or
learning to control the drug high. Characteristic of the accounts in
our study is very few sanctions, and little fear of sanctions, at the
initial stages of cannabis use. Rather than diminishing with time,
interventions from adults were more or less absent early on in the
interviewees’ cannabis careers and only (if at all) set in later when
e.g. worried parents tried to motivate their children to seek treatment. This is again an indication that today, the crucial “moral”
distinction in cannabis careers is not so much between non-use and
occasional use but between occasional and regular use. While
Becker (1955e56) described social control as based on the fear of
condemnation from non-users in general, including non-using
peers, our interviewees worried to a very limited extent about reactions from friends and other peers. If anything, they tried to avoid
formal sanctions such as being expelled from school or work-places
(in our data we have very few examples of this actually happening).
Cannabis morals
The third dimension in Becker’s (1955e56) conceptualisation of
social control was the change in users’ conceptions of cannabis that
would come about when moving from occasional to regular use. As
mentioned, this implied that users would become more and more
liberal towards cannabis and downplay potential harmful effects.
These attitudes were also present in our data. However, the interviewees’ stance towards cannabis was complex. Consider
Christian (20) who described how he and his friends had discussed
cannabis:
“We had many discussions about cannabis versus alcohol, like,
what’s worse and can you even compare them? And we had
reached the conclusion that cannabis was not even close to
being as bad as alcohol [...] It’s difficult to hold a job if you’re a
real alcoholic, whereas people who smoke cannabis can still
handle a bunch of stuff.”
In this, the parallel to Becker’s study is clear. However, Christian
then continued, turning to his own use:
“When it [his use] was too much, or if you had too many practical issues, you would take like one-day or two-day breaks. But
still, you always ended up with periods of time where you felt
that everything was overwhelming, you didn’t check your bills
and stuff like that. Good planning was difficult after all, somehow [...] When people found out that you smoked every day, like
old friends [...] you had to explain and they would ask ‘how do
you make it work?’, right, and then you could suddenly hear
how you had become very different from them. That your life
had changed a lot. But when you were in the middle of it, it
didn’t seem like such a big change [...] you can smoke cannabis
and feel just fine for a long time and not realise that you’re in
trouble”.
Contrary to Becker’s interviewees, Christian did not describe an
initial change from a restrictive view to a “liberal” stance on
cannabis. He was more preoccupied with a change later in the
process, when his own use intensified and he realised that his life
deviated from that of his non-using friends. Thus, he started to
regard his previous view on cannabis as somehow uninformed
(“you can smoke cannabis and feel fine for a long time and not
realise that you are in trouble”). This kind of change, from a liberal
to a more restrictive view is not described by Becker, probably
because his data stopped where ours continue, depicting a transformation from socially integrated to individualised, excessive use
for which the interviewees have sought treatment.
While this change towards a more restrictive view was the
overall pattern, a few exceptions occurred. Thus, Lise (26) said she
found “no reason to stop”, although she was “dependent on
cannabis”, explaining: “it’s not a problem for me (.) it’s just who I
am. It would be like getting rid of a great part of me, and I don’t
know what to put instead”. Lisa was diagnosed with ADHD and
borderline personality disorder and viewed her own cannabis use
as medication, which should be replaced with “something else”
(legal drugs) if she was to stop smoking (see also Bottorf, Johnson,
Moffat, & Mulvogue, 2009). In a similar way a couple of other
interviewees did not dissociate themselves from cannabis but
rather said they “needed” the drug because of emotional
problems.
According to Becker, regular cannabis users emphasise how the
drug is not addictive but controllable, and demonstrate this i.e.
through deliberate breaks. “Tests are made e use is given up and
the consequences awaited e and when nothing untoward occurs,
the user is able to draw the conclusion that there is nothing to fear”
(Becker, 1955e56, p. 43). However, Becker did not touch upon the
cases in which these “tests” would fall out negatively. Martin (20)
described such failed attempts at controlling his cannabis use:
“Then I moved back in with my parents and started working.
And that’s when I really began to understand that this was quite
a big problem for me because all the time I sneaked around to
smoke and had to avoid my parents, and I thought it was stupid
and why couldn’t I just skip smoking sometimes [...] I tried to
stop for a couple of days but then I didn’t sleep at night at all [...]
Then I cut down and started to only smoke at night [...] Often I
haven’t mentioned this to friends or others because I’m scared
they will laugh at me or say ‘That can’t be a problem. Cannabis
abuse, are you kidding me?!’”
Faced with the feeling of not being in control of the drug, Martin
changed his view on cannabis. However, he was afraid of telling this
to people around him, not because he feared they would condemn
him as a cannabis user but because he thought “cannabis abuse”
would sound like a joke. In the eyes of Martin’s peers, cannabis was
not a drug that could cause problems or be addictive, and by
admitting to having a problem with cannabis he would therefore
make a fool of himself.
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
Discussion
When Becker formulated his theory in the 1950s, cannabis was
not widely distributed and use was not very common, neither in the
US nor in Europe. This societal context naturally influenced his
thinking on cannabis careers and social control surrounding
cannabis use. However, it is precisely changes at this level that
make a revision of Becker’s approach necessary if we want to utilise
it for understanding cannabis use today (cf. Hallstone, 2002;
Hathaway, 1997, 2004). We suggest a revision of Becker’s theory
in relation to four aspects: initiation of use; problematic use; control by non-users; and moral stance on cannabis.
First, in today’s Denmark (as in many other Western countries),
cannabis is easily available, experimentation with cannabis is not
viewed as deviant and the effects of the drug are well-known,
meaning that novices are less dependent on subcultural networks
to provide them with cannabis, introduce them to smoking techniques or help them recognise the effects of the drug. This is a
potential reason for why we do not identify a distinct ‘beginner
stage’ in our data. Instead, in our interviewees’ accounts, initiation
merges with occasional use; an activity practiced by a relatively
large proportion of the youth population (Järvinen & Demant, 2011;
Østergaard et al., 2011).
Second, like Hirsch et al. (1990) we find Becker’s cannabis career
stage ‘regular use’ too broad. In our data we see two types of regular
use: one in which cannabis is smoked for social reasons and one in
which it is smoked with a focus on the user’s own, individualised
intoxication. Like Becker, we emphasise that regular cannabis use
typically develops in the company of, and under the influence of,
cannabis-smoking peers. To this, however, we add the finding that
the transformation of integrated, and in a sense ‘controlled’,
cannabis use into disintegrated, ‘uncontrolled’ use is also related to
social processes. This time, though, the order is reversed so that the
group loosens its hold on the individual, and his/her smoking becomes less and less social. However, in contrast to Hathaway’s
study and research inspired by rational choice theory (e.g. Shukla &
Kelley, 2007), in very few cases in our study this appears as deliberate lifestyle choices but rather as unintended processes of dissolving sociability.
Third, our analysis indicates changes in the social control surrounding cannabis use. Because experimenting with cannabis is no
longer seen as stigmatising behaviour, occasional smokers do not
need to hide their use from others, particularly not peers. As their
use increases, however, they try to conceal, not that they smoke but
how much they smoke. The lack of condemnation of occasional
cannabis use also shows in the fact that parents and teachers do not
interfere in the first stages of use. As long as cannabis smoking is
occasional and socially integrated, we have (almost) no examples in
our data of negative reactions from adults. Only when use becomes
disintegrated, and cannabis smoking starts to interfere with the
youths’ entire life e they stay away from school or work, stop
seeing their family regularly, stay indoors for weeks etc. e adults
(typically parents) intervene. Hence, what we see in our data is not
a gradual loosening of social control in relation to cannabis, as
Becker (1955e56) proposed, but rather reactions that set in late in
the process when problems become visible.
Fourth, our analysis shows a development in the users’ ‘moral
stance’ on cannabis contrary to the development depicted by
Becker. While Becker described cannabis users’ attitudes as
becoming more and more relaxed, our interviewees started their
careers with a relatively liberal stance on cannabis, attitudes they
share with a large proportion of Danish youth. They regarded
cannabis as being a safe drug, as long as one does not use it on a
daily basis and/or alone. As their use escalated, however, and they
experienced problems, they came to see the drug as harmful and
139
addictive. In this, the transformation of their conceptions of
cannabis e from legitimate and safe to illegitimate and harmful e is
more or less the opposite of what Becker described.
In conclusion, we suggest a career model consisting of three
stages: occasional use, socially integrated use and individualised,
disintegrated use. There is no distinct ‘beginner stage’ characterised
by sub-cultural socialisation in our data, nor is there a development
in the direction of group-based cannabis use legitimisation and
gradual loosening of social control. Rather, there is occasional use
and socially integrated use which is (by and large) culturally
legitimate e and disintegrated use which is considered problematic
by both users and non-users. This theoretical revision of Becker’s
model takes into account the changed societal context of cannabis
use. It also extends the model to include, not only recreational use
which has been the main focus of most previous studies inspired by
Becker but also problematic use on which there is very little sociological research.
Finally, some limitations of the study should be mentioned.
Most importantly, all interviewees were contacted via the treatment system. What we compare, in our application of Becker’s
theory, is a model developed in order to understand nonproblematic drug use e or even: a model developed to show that
drug use is not always problematic e to career descriptions provided by persons identified (by themselves and the treatment
system) as having problems. The young people in our study are a
specific subgroup of a larger population (of unknown size) of regular cannabis smokers. The transformations they describe in their
cannabis careers, e.g. a change from socially integrated to disintegrated use, and a change in the effects they seek from cannabis,
may also be (part of) the reason why they sought treatment in the
first place. Also, enrolment in treatment probably favours specific
ways of telling one’s drug-related life story. For instance, participants in treatment might describe their cannabis use in more
negative terms than regular cannabis users outside the treatment
system would have done, by emphasising e.g. loneliness and
isolation rather than sociability, and by depicting a distinct moral
change in their relationship to cannabis; they now ‘realise’ that
they have a serious cannabis problem. The findings we have presented are therefore primarily applicable to cannabis users who
have been defined as problem users and who, because of their
involvement in treatment or for other reasons, are in a process of
reconsidering their cannabis career.
Another limitation of the study is that it is based on interviews
alone rather than interviews in combination with fieldwork. Hence,
when participants say they did not need instructions in how to use
cannabis, or when they describe themselves as belonging to
mainstream or socially marginalised friend groups rather than
oppositional and self-conscious subcultures, this should be read as
accounts provided in a specific (interview) setting (cf. Demant &
Järvinen, 2006; Ravn, 2012). Fieldwork following the youths in
different stages of their drug use career might have provided a
more complex picture of the social contexts of the interviewees’
drug use.
With these reservations in mind, we emphasize two aspects of
our revision of Becker’s model as especially relevant for prevention
and treatment. One implication is a call for a greater preventive
attention to the passage from socially integrated to disintegrated
use. According to our findings, the three forms of social control
described by Becker (control of supply, control by non-using peers
and self-control inhibiting drug use initiation) have more or less
been suspended. In a cannabis-liberal country like Denmark, where
the capital city Copenhagen works on a legalisation of cannabis, a
preventive approach aimed at eradicating experimental use of
cannabis seems unrealistic. More realistic are prevention programmes informing young people about risky forms of cannabis
140
M. Järvinen, S. Ravn / Social Science & Medicine 100 (2014) 133e140
use such as smoking cannabis alone or using cannabis on an
everyday basis and in order to suppress anxiety, forget troubles and
as sleeping medicine. Further, programmes informing parents,
teachers and other adults about potential indications of a problematic use of cannabis among young people e for instance social
isolation and truancy e seem relevant.
In terms of treatment, our findings emphasise the need to pay
more attention to the group level instead of merely the individual
level. This implies a rethinking of today’s approach to group-based
treatment, which most often brings together individuals who do
not know each other beforehand. Instead, our findings show the
importance of understanding the dynamics of the groups in which
the individual user already takes part and the development of these
dynamics over time. Thus, we suggest that treatment centres
therapeutically address whole groups of friends, instead of the
single individual, in order to make them reflect on their own
pattern of cannabis use and inform them about dysfunctional ways
of relating to cannabis. In cases where the individual cannabis user
has a network of non-using friends, or recreational users able to
control their use, these could be assisted in developing peer support for him/her during and after treatment. If the young person’s
closest friends are heavy users, these could be invited to meetings
at the treatment centre where information about treatment possibilities is provided and the fragile situation of a friend who has
sought treatment is discussed. The strength of a peer group
approach to youth drug treatment is that it is not restricted to the
treatment setting. Reflections and processes of change may be
initiated and facilitated by treatment staff, but can continue ‘after
hours’ and thus make up for the fact that in outpatient treatment
the time spent with staff members is minimal compared to the time
spent with friends. If successful, a peer group approach could make
the two spheres of influence (that of professionals and that of
friends) work together instead of opposing each other as is often
the case today.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank The Danish Council for Independent Research
(Social Sciences) for support of the first author, and the Centre for
Alcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University, for support of the
second author. We also want to thank the anonymous reviewers of
this paper for their very helpful comments.
References
Aldridge, J., Measham, F., & Williams, L. (2011). Illegal leisure revisited. Changing
patterns of alcohol and drug use in adolescents and young adults. New York:
Routledge.
Amos, A., Wiltshire, S., Bostock, Y., Haw, S., & McNeill, A. (2004). ‘You can’t go
without a fag. you need it for your hash’ e a qualitative exploration of
smoking, cannabis and young people. Addiction, 99(1), 77e81.
Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a Marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology,
59(3), 235e242.
Becker, H. S. (1955e56). Marihuana use and social control. Social Problems, 3(1),
35e44.
Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The
Free Press.
Bell, R., Pavis, S., Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998). Young men’s use of
cannabis: exploring changes in meaning and context over time. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 5(2), 141e155.
Bottorf, J. L., Johnson, J. L., Moffat, B. M., & Mulvogue, T. (2009). Relief-oriented use
of marijuana by teens. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 4(7),
1e10.
Demant, J., & Järvinen, M. (2006). Constructing maturity through alcohol experience: focus group interviews with teenagers. Addiction Research and Theory,
14(6), 589e602.
EMCDDA. (2012). The state of the drugs problem in Europe. Annual Report 2012.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Featherstone, M. (1991). The body in consumer culture. In B. Turner (Ed.), The body:
Social process and cultural theory (pp. 170e196). London: Sage.
Fletcher, A., Bonell, C., Sorhaindo, A., & Rhodes, T. (2009). Cannabis use and ‘safe’
identities in an inner-city school risk environment. International Journal of Drug
Policy, 20(3), 244e250.
Golub, A. (2005). The cultural/subcultural contexts of Marijuana use at the turn of the
twenty-first century. New York: The Haworth Press.
Haines, R. J., Johnson, J. L., Carter, C. I., & Arora, K. (2009). “I couldn’t say, I’m not a
girl” e adolescents talk about gender and marijuana use. Social Science &
Medicine, 68, 2029e2036.
Hallstone, M. (2002). Updating Howard Becker’s theory of using marijuana for
pleasure. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29(4), 821e845.
Hallstone, M. (2006). An explorative investigation of marijuana and other drug
careers. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 38(1), 65e75.
Hathaway, A. D. (1997). Marijuana and tolerance: revisiting Becker’s sources of
control. Deviant Behavior, 18(2), 103e124.
Hathaway, A. D. (2004). Cannabis careers reconsidered: transitions and trajectories of committed long-term users. Contemporary Drug Problems, 31(Fall),
401e423.
Hathaway, A. D., Comeau, N. C., & Erickson, P. G. (2011). Cannabis normalization and
stigma: contemporary practices of moral regulation. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 11(5), 451e469.
Hirsch, M. L., Conforti, R. W., & Graney, C. J. (1990). The use of marijuana for pleasure: a replication of Howard S. Becker’s study of marijuana use. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 497e510.
Hutton, F. (2006). Risky pleasures? Club cultures and feminine identities. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Järvinen, M., & Demant, J. (2011). The normalization of cannabis use. Symbolic
boundary work in focus groups. Health, Risk & Society, 13(2), 165e172.
Järvinen, M., & Ravn, S. (2011). From recreational to regular use: qualitative interviews with young clubbers. Sociology of Health and Illness, 33(4), 554e569.
MacDonald, R., & Marsh, J. (2002). Crossing the Rubicon: youth transitions, poverty,
drugs and social exclusion. International Journal of Drug Policy, 13(1), 27e38.
Malbon, B. (1999). Clubbing. Dancing, ecstasy and vitality. London: Routledge.
Measham, F. (2004). The decline of ecstasy, the rise of ‘binge’ drinking and the
persistence of pleasure. Probation Journal. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 51(4), 309e326.
Measham, F., Aldridge, J., & Parker, H. (2001). Dancing on drugs. Risk, health and
hedonism in the British club scene. London: Free Association Books.
Measham, F., Newcombe, R., & Parker, H. (1994). The normalization of recreational
drug use amongst young people in north-west England. The British Journal of
Sociology, 45(2), 287e312.
Measham, F., & Shiner, M. (2009). The legacy of ‘normalisation’: the role of classical
and contemporary criminological theory in understanding young people’s drug
use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 52e508.
Østergaard, J., Røgeskov, M., & Rasmussen, P. S. (2011). Unges rusmiddelprofil
[Youths’drug profiles]. In M. Järvinen, J. Demant, & J. Østergaard (Eds.), Stoffer og
natteliv (Drugs and night life) (pp. 28e48). Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Parker, H., Aldridge, J., & Measham, F. (1998). Illegal leisure e The normalization of
adolescent recreational drug use. London: Routledge.
Ravn, S. (2012). Contested identities: identity constructions in a youth recreational
drug culture. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15(4), 513e527.
Sandberg, S. (2012). Cannabis culture: a stable subculture in a changing world.
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 13(1), 63e79.
Sandberg, S., & Pedersen, W. (2010). Cannabiskultur [Cannabis culture]. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Sanders, B. (2005). In the club: ecstasy use and supply in a London nightclub. Sociology, 39(2), 241e258.
Shildrick, T. (2002). Young people, illicit drug use and the question of normalization.
Journal of Youth Studies, 5(1), 35e48.
Shildrick, T. (2008). Young people and illicit drug use: differentiated experiences
and policy failures. Youth and Policy, 100, 177e185.
Shiner, M. (2009). Drug use and social change: The distortion of history. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Shukla, R. K., & Kelley, M. S. (2007). Investigating how decisions to use marijuana
change over time. Substance Use & Misuse, 42(9), 1401e1425.
Thornton, S. (1995). Club cultures. Music, media and subcultural capital. Middletown,
Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press.
Williams, L., & Parker, H. (2001). Alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine: drugs of
reasoned choice amongst young adult recreational drug users in England. International Journal of Drug Policy, 12(5), 397e413.